Senators support President Obama's decision on trade agreements and trade adjustment assistance

[ProSense]

Sens. Brown, Stabenow, Rockefeller, Casey, Bingaman, Cantwell Lead Group Of 41 Senators To Tell President Obama: Hold Firm On Halting Free Trade Agreements Unitl Trade Adjustment Assistance Is Extended

Senators Request Extension of 2009 TAA Reforms to Cover Service Workers and Job Losses to Non-FTA Countries Like China, Updates to Health Care Tax Credit

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Forty-one U.S. Senators—led by Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA)—sent a letter today to President Barack Obama reinforcing his decision not to submit any free trade agreements to Congress—including pending agreements for Colombia, Panama, and South Korea—until Congress agrees to extend a long-term extension of Trade Adjustment Assistance, including the 2009 bipartisan reforms.

The senators asked the President to work with them to secure bipartisan support for an extension of the Recovery Act-version of TAA, including coverage for service workers as well as workers who lose their jobs to countries other than those with which the United States has formal free trade agreements, including China. This version of TAA also covers an expanded version of the Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC), which helps Delphi retirees and other trade-affected workers afford private health insurance.

“We have an obligation to take care of American workers and American industry first. TAA is one critical piece to rebalancing our trade policy, along with strengthened trade enforcement. Too often, we pass free trade agreements and then turn our backs on the American workers who have watched their jobs go to Mexico or China,” Sen. Brown said. “At a minimum, we cannot move forward on any other trade agreements until updates to Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Health Care Tax Credit are passed, and I applaud the President for standing with workers on this issue. With more and more American and Ohio jobs moving to countries like China and India, we need to ensure that these hardworking men and women have the skills to compete for new jobs. TAA is a win-win for Americans training for new jobs and employers looking for a skilled workforce.”

“Congress should not be considering new trade agreements before renewing protections for people whose jobs are sent overseas," said Sen. Stabenow. “Along with extending retraining to help workers transition to the industries of the future, it is time to strengthen trade enforcement and finally get tough on China and other countries violating fair trade rules. U.S. trade policy should put American families and businesses first.”

“Before we focus on trade agreements with other countries, we must first and foremost take care of American workers who are looking for work or may have lost their jobs to outsourcing,” said Sen. Rockefeller. “We must extend TAA assistance for the many American workers who need it to help put food on the table and get needed training for new jobs. I have seen too many West Virginia families suffer because their jobs were moved out of this country.”

“If we truly want to get America get back on the road to prosperity, then we must ensure our workers have the proper tools to be able to find new employment. TAA helps workers, who have lost their job due to outsourcing production outside the United States, do exactly that. In the current economic environment, it is critical that we restore this vital program, especially before considering additional trade agreements,” Sen. Casey said.

"TAA has been a pillar of U.S. trade policy for decades. Congress modernized the program in 2009 to meet the needs of today's economy by extending TAA eligibility to people in the services sector and factoring in trade competition with non-FTA countries. Because of these changes, TAA has been a lifeline for hundreds of thousands of American workers over the past two years. As Congress prepares to consider the pending trade agreements, we must strengthen the safety net for middle class workers by extending these critical job retraining, health insurance and unemployment insurance benefits,” said Sen. Bingaman, a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee and long-time TAA advocate.

“We need to make sure American workers have the skills they need for 21st century jobs that grow our economy,” said Sen. Cantwell. “Trade Adjustment Assistance has provided vital retraining to thousands of displaced Washingtonians to get back into the workforce. Moving forward, we must extend this critical program so workers impacted by trade have the support they need to find new jobs in emerging sectors of the economy.”

The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Patty Murray (D-WA, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Carl Levin (D-MI), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Al Franken (D-MN), Amy Klobuchar (D-NM), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Mark Begich (D-AK), Chris Coons (D-DE), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Mark Udall (D-CO), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The full text is below.

Dear President Obama:

We share the goal of your National Export Initiative to double U.S. exports and are looking forward to working with you on implementing a strong trade and competitiveness strategy. We are writing to support your decision to insist that Congress agree to extend Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), including a long term extension of the 2009 bipartisan reforms, before you submit the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. We recognize, as you do, that such a deal will be challenging to secure because it requires significant bipartisan commitments in both chambers of Congress to vote in favor of a TAA extension. The challenge is worth it. We agree with you that strengthening the safety net for the middle class by extending TAA should be a prerequisite for the consideration of new trade agreements.

TAA has been a core pillar of U.S. trade policy. The program ensures that workers who lose their jobs and financial security as a result of globalization have an opportunity to transition to new jobs and emerging sectors of the economy. Important reforms were made to TAA in 2009, which have helped streamline the program and make it more efficient for beneficiaries. In 2009, Congress also expanded eligibility to all workers whose jobs have been moved offshore, regardless of whether the United States has a trade agreement with the particular country. It also recognized the important role of the service industry in the U.S. economy by bringing service workers into TAA.

The program also improved and expanded access to TAA’s Health Coverage Tax Credit (HCTC) – an initiative that promotes private health insurance access for recipients, and makes health insurance coverage more affordable to workers who lose their jobs due to trade and offshoring. In the absence of this program, more Americans would need public assistance and more individuals nearing retirement would be forced to use the emergency room as their sole source of health care.

These bipartisan reforms to the TAA program help hundreds of thousands of workers, in every state, by moving workers more quickly from government support to private sector jobs. Since new TAA began in May 2009, the program has assisted 185,000 Americans who may have otherwise been ineligible for services, with usage in some states increasing by more than 40 percent. The 2009 reforms also help ensure accountability and results by requiring data on performance and worker outcomes, enabling Congress to identify where improvements are needed. Unfortunately, these critical TAA reforms expired on February 12, 2011. Just this month, the Department of Labor denied the first three petitions filed by groups of workers seeking TAA assistance under pre-2009 eligibility. The continued denial of critical training will impede private sector employment in emerging sectors of the economy.

While we the undersigned may have differing views on elements of the trade agenda – with some of us looking forward to supporting the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, and others skeptical of the impact of the agreements –we are unified in our belief that the first order of business, before we should consider any FTA, is securing a long-term TAA extension.

We look forward to working with you to extend and implement TAA as part of broader trade and competitiveness strategy that creates jobs and builds the middle class.

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[Armstead]

2. You want a comment? Okay here it is.....

It is a sad state of affairs when a policy that is already known will throw people out of work and ship jobs and productive capacity out of the US is being defended by "retraining" for the predetermined victims.

Why not start by NOT pursuing policies that -- by design -- will make it harder for the working/middle class to get jobs and make a living?

What about trade policies that actually protect jobs and domestic productivity instead?

P.S. I am not attacking the Democratic senators who are supporting this. People like Sherrod brown have been fighting for years to protect working people and jobs. They are going to this as a "half a loaf" answer to the provide some counterbalance to the corporate oligarchs who push this phony "free trade" con game.

But it would be much preferable to start by pursuing trade policies that will actually benefit American workers instead of accelerating the loss of jobs here.


Aren't you glad you asked for comments?

[ProSense]

3. Interesting

"P.S. I am not attacking the Democratic senators who are supporting this. People like Sherrod brown have been fighting for years to protect working people and jobs. They are going to this as a 'half a loaf' answer to the provide some counterbalance to the corporate oligarchs who push this phony "free trade" con game.

From the OP:

“We have an obligation to take care of American workers and American industry first. TAA is one critical piece to rebalancing our trade policy, along with strengthened trade enforcement. Too often, we pass free trade agreements and then turn our backs on the American workers who have watched their jobs go to Mexico or China,” Sen. Brown said. “At a minimum, we cannot move forward on any other trade agreements until updates to Trade Adjustment Assistance and the Health Care Tax Credit are passed, and I applaud the President for standing with workers on this issue. With more and more American and Ohio jobs moving to countries like China and India, we need to ensure that these hardworking men and women have the skills to compete for new jobs. TAA is a win-win for Americans training for new jobs and employers looking for a skilled workforce.”

<...>

We share the goal of your National Export Initiative to double U.S. exports and are looking forward to working with you on implementing a strong trade and competitiveness strategy. We are writing to support your decision to insist that Congress agree to extend Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), including a long term extension of the 2009 bipartisan reforms, before you submit the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. We recognize, as you do, that such a deal will be challenging to secure because it requires significant bipartisan commitments in both chambers of Congress to vote in favor of a TAA extension. The challenge is worth it. We agree with you that strengthening the safety net for the middle class by extending TAA should be a prerequisite for the consideration of new trade agreements.

Nothing "half a loaf" about that.

"Aren't you glad you asked for comments?"

Always!

[Armstead]

4. What Brown really thinks

This is from 2006........yes, I am fairly confident he sees this as half a loaf, and he would much prefer stronger policies that actually protect US jobs...But since "free trade" is still being pursued by the Obama, Brown is tring to get whatever concessions he can get.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122201020.html

How Free Trade Hurts

By Byron Dorgan and Sherrod Brown
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Fewer and fewer Americans support our government's trade policy. They see a shrinking middle class, lost jobs and exploding trade deficits. Yet supporters of free trade continue to push for more of the same -- more job-killing trade agreements, greater tax breaks for large corporations that export jobs and larger government incentives for outsourcing.

Last month voters around the country said they want something very different. They voted for candidates who stood up for the middle class and who spoke out for fair trade. They did so because they understand what's at stake.....

...That is what's at stake when we talk about trade policy: America's middle class and the American Dream.

The new mobility of capital and technology, coupled with the revolution in information technology, makes production of goods possible throughout much of the world. But much of the world at the beginning of the 21st century looks a lot like the United States did 100 years ago: Workers are grossly underpaid, exploited and abused, and they have virtually no rights. Many, including children, work 10, 12, 14 hours a day, six or seven days a week, for only a few dollars a day. The result has been a global race to the bottom as corporations troll the world for the cheapest labor, the fewest health, safety and environmental regulations, and the governments most unfriendly to labor rights. U.S. trade agreements paved the way for this race: While rejecting protections for workers or the environment, they protected investors and corporate interests.

The results of such trade agreements are skyrocketing trade deficits -- more than $800 billion this year alone -- and downward pressure on income and benefits for American workers. Why? Because these agreements enable countries to ship what their low-wage workers produce to the United States while blocking many U.S. products from entering their countries.

Equally important, by enabling this kind of trade, the agreements force U.S. workers to accept cuts in their pay and benefits so their employers can compete with low-wage foreign producers. And those workers are the lucky ones. Millions of others have lost their jobs as corporations moved overseas to build the same products with cheap foreign labor. It is no coincidence that salaries and wages today are the lowest percentage of gross domestic product since the government began keeping track of this in 1947.

We must insist that all trade agreements have labor, environmental and other protections so that American workers can compete on a level playing field. Trade agreements must also be reciprocal. The American market is the most desirable in the world. Every country wants access to it. That gives us a great deal of leverage, if only we'd use it. Barriers to U.S. products overseas should not be tolerated.

Free-trade agreements have protected drug companies, international investors and Hollywood films, yet failed to protect our communities, our workers and our environment. We believe there is a better way. Fair trade is not the enemy of more trade. It's how we expand international trade without reversing U.S. economic progress.

[ProSense]

5. So

Brown doesn't really think this?

[Armstead]

6. he does not like these trade agreements, but is trying to salvage something

That's perfectly understandable.

Just don't pretend he's jumping for joy that more pseudo free-trade agreements are being pushed, when he would obviously prefer agreements that actually protect jobs.

I would also ote a critical paragraph from the article you posted:

"While we the undersigned may have differing views on elements of the trade agenda – with some of us looking forward to supporting the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, and others skeptical of the impact of the agreements –we are unified in our belief that the first order of business, before we should consider any FTA, is securing a long-term TAA extension."

[ProSense]

7. "We share the goal of your National Export Initiative to double U.S. exports "

Can't double exports without a trade agreement. Brown wants to strenghten the agreements.

What does Bernie Sanders, another signatory, really believe?

"Just don't pretend he's jumping for joy"

Wow, this is really bothering you, huh?

[Armstead]

8. No, but your selective interpretation does.

People like Sanders and Brown are NOT sudden advocates of free trade, or these particular agreements.

They are trying to wrest whatever concessions for American workers they can get, including extending a longstanding policy to at least provide a little something something to workers.

And the goal of increasing exports s also a worthy goal. But that does not mean they are thrilled with these agreements, and would not prefer to see them be different and oriented to FAIR trade policies i

A key paragraph you are glossing over:

"While we the undersigned may have differing views on elements of the trade agenda – with some of us looking forward to supporting the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, and others skeptical of the impact of the agreements –we are unified in our belief that the first order of business, before we should consider any FTA, is securing a long-term TAA extension."

[ProSense]

9. "selective interpretation "?

The OP only contains Brown's statement.

"People like Sanders and Brown are NOT sudden advocates of free trade, or these particular agreements."

Did Brown issue the statement and did they sign the letter?

Are they preparing to support these agreements with the TAA in place?

If they are, does claiming that they really don't believe in the actions they're about to take make sense?

[Armstead]

10. Okay.....

Ohio's senators disagree on Colombian trade pact

The Columbus Dispatch
DispatchPolitics

Apr. 11,2011

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/10/copy/dc2.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a longtime critic of trade pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, last week assailed the new agreement between the Obama administration and Colombia, charging that "it merely represents another example of Washington being out-of-touch with concerns and values of most Americans."

"While Congress tries to prevent a government shutdown - while the gathering threat to workers rights across the world is ever more clear - the president's announcement of a trade agreement with a country that remains the most-dangerous country to be a trade unionist is a disappointment," the Ohio Democrat said in a statement.

[ProSense]

11. OK,

are you saying this isn't Brown?

[Armstead]

12. Ok, are you able to read?

Read the paragraph I cited near the end of the article that you just keep recycling in reply (as you totally ignore the statement I posted directly from Brown.)

In case your eyes glaze over, let me repeat thast paragraph you so conveniently ignore once again, as evidence that not all of the Senators afre stroglhy in support of the concept of the FTA.

"While we the undersigned may have differing views on elements of the trade agenda – with some of us looking forward to supporting the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, and others skeptical of the impact of the agreements....."

[ProSense]

13. "as you totally ignore the statement I posted directly from Brown"

Aren't you ignoring the OP statement from Brown? I mean, you're using Brown's past statements to debunk his current statement.

Can you accept the fact that Brown is prepared to support the agreements with the TAA in place?

[Armstead]

14. I am not ignoring Brown's statement in the OP..

I am sure he said it, and I am sure that he is supporting Obama's delaying the agreement to ensure the worker assistance program is extended. And he may end up grudgingly voting for it, in exchange for concessions


But that is not the same as endorsing or truly supporting the agreement itself. He is trying to make the best of what he sees as a bad situation.

See his statement I referred to in which he is strongly critical of the basic agreement. There is plenty more where that came from.

C'mon, admit it. This is not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be. You can do it...

[ProSense]

15. OK

"I am sure he said it, and I am sure that he is supporting Obama's delaying the agreement to ensure the worker assistance program is extended.

But that is not the same as endorsing or truly supporting the agreement itself. He is trying to make the best of what he sees as a bad situation."


He's supporing it, but not "endorsing or truly supporting the agreement." Got it!

[Armstead]

16. No you don't want to "get it"

I realize you would like us to believe that President Obama has won over those leftist malcontents who were opposed to corporate free trade agreements.

BUT it is not that simple. People like Brown realize that with the support of Republicans and the "centrist" Democrats this further corporate free trade giveaway is going to pass. Brown ( and others) are doing theirvbest to at least salvage something in there for the American workers who are going to be displaced by these fta scams.

They are being pragmatic, which is not the same as actually supporting the FTAs.

Brown has been on the record many times expressing his strong disagreements with these race to the bottom free trade agreements.

But I guess you prefer to ignore those inconvenient shades of grey, and want to stick to the idea that President Obama has charmed them into totally changing their minds on a core principle they have held for many years.

[ProSense]

17. This is really eating you up, isn't it?

I realize you would like us to believe that President Obama has won over those leftist malcontents who were opposed to corporate free trade agreements.

You think they're "leftist malcontents"? Brown is supporting the agreement only in the event that the TAA is approved.

BUT it is not that simple. People like Brown realize that with the support of Republicans and the "centrist" Democrats this further corporate free trade giveaway is going to pass. Brown ( and others) are doing theirvbest to at least salvage something in there for the American workers who are going to be displaced by these fta scams.

From the OP: "TAA is a win-win for Americans training for new jobs and employers looking for a skilled workforce.”

They are being pragmatic, which is not the same as actually supporting the FTAs.

Eww! How "centrist!"

Brown has been on the record many times expressing his strong disagreements with these race to the bottom free trade agreements.

Are you suggesting he's compromising his principles? The fact is that Brown and others do not have to support these agreements. He is choosing to do so if a specific condition is met.

But I guess you prefer to ignore those inconvenient shades of grey, and want to stick to the idea that President Obama has charmed them into totally changing their minds on a core principle they have held for many years.

WTF?

:rofl:

[JTFrog]

18. +1

[Armstead]

19. Do you deliberatly make everything One Dimensional?

Once again you miss the point -- or deflect the point -- by only disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing in a one-dimensional way.

I am not characterizing people like Brown as "leftist malcontents" -- that is how they are characterized by the lockstep centrist crowd. I happen to agree with brown on the basic issues of trade policy.

I am not criticizing him or others for pushing Obama to at least stand firm on the TAA before passing these FTA's. There is nothing wrong with that sort of pragmatism, if it is done in the context of trying to get something for the American worker.

From the OP -- they are saying the TAA is good for workers --- Not that the free trade agreements are. There is a difference because the TAA is a preexisting program that they want to be sure doesn't get lost in the shuffle of these free trade agreements. That doesn't mean they are supportive of the free trade agreements themselves. It's called bargaining.

Also, Brown is trying to work with the Obama administration to changhe the nature of trade agreements. So when he agrees witrh something, he will say so. If he disagrees he will say so.

Brown is more concerned with the larger issue and outcome, than either fluffing up President Obama or relentlessly criticizing and opposing him on these things.

As I said above, you ought to accept that these things are not always black and white.

[ProSense]

20. Hmmmm?

From the OP -- they are saying the TAA is good for workers --- Not that the free trade agreements are. There is a difference because the TAA is a preexisting program that they want to be sure doesn't get lost in the shuffle of these free trade agreements. That doesn't mean they are supportive of the free trade agreements themselves. It's called bargaining.

From the OP: "TAA is one critical piece to rebalancing our trade policy, along with strengthened trade enforcement."

Oh, replay:

But I guess you prefer to ignore those inconvenient shades of grey, and want to stick to the idea that President Obama has charmed them into totally changing their minds on a core principle they have held for many years.

WTF?

:rofl:

[Armstead]

21. A lot easier to say WTF with a laughing icon than to actually meet someone halfway isn't it?

This is why discussion or debate with you gets back to running in circles.

None of what I said contradicts my basic point. Nor does it contradict the OP....But you can't take "yes" for an answer, much less "yes, but also..."

[ProSense]

22. Wait

But I guess you prefer to ignore those inconvenient shades of grey, and want to stick to the idea that President Obama has charmed them into totally changing their minds on a core principle they have held for many years.

...you expected to be met "halfway" after making this comment?

Seriously?

:rofl:

[Armstead]

24. That's because you bring out the best in me

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. ROFL

[olegramps]

23. Trade agreements that result in unemployment. Why not tariffs to level the playing field?

Now I remember. GOP: Unions bad, sweat shops good. Tariffs bad, exploitation of desperate workers good. Unemployed American workers good, makes them desperate and easily exploited.